The Electric Comet theory

[Belz...]

Of course it's grey. That's the colour of electricity, after all.

 

[Reality Check]

Then Tom there is this to consider ...

the usual rant about peoples delusions about comets (and the Sun) from Haig !

There is a lie about the "Sun is entering a Grand Solar Minimum". The Sun may be entering a "mini-Maunder event".

The ignorance from you, Haig, is actually growing !
The fact that the Sun is powered by fusion has nothing to do with sunspots.

 

[Reality Check]

The ignorance, delusions and lies in the Thunderbolts web site and videos

Your European Space Agency is right into youtube Ambition the film

Of course the ESA supports good science presentations !
They are not ignorant about science.
They are not deluded about science.
They do not lie to their readers.

Haig, any one (except you and Sol88. What about you paladin17?) who reads their web site or watches the videos can see how ignorant and deluded these web pages and videos are.

• The lies, failures and successes of Thunderbolts Deep Impact predictions.
• Haig (7th July 2014), if you want to see many cases of delusional thinking and ignorance from an EU "expert" often citing other EU "experts" then have a look at the Thunderbolts picture of the day blog!
• Haig (14th July 2014), How can you believe in the competence of the EU proponents when the speakers at their 2014 conference was a collection of cranks, actual deluded people and some electrical engineers? (the deluded people were the Velikovsky belivers: David Talbott, Daniel Jencka, Dwardu Cardona)?
• Haig (3rd November 2014): Have you noted the 19 items of ignorance and delusion in the first 11 minutes (out of 90!) of a Thunderbolt video that you cited?
• Haig (20th November 2014): Can you understand the ignorance and delusions in that Thunderbolts video about Mars?
• 24 November 2014 Haig: Can you understand that this ES "paper" is ignorant about and lies about astronomy?
• 5 December 2014 Haig: Can you see the delusions and ignorance in the linked Electric Comet web page?, e.g. "The possibly Velikovskian delusion of "violent electrical interactions of planets and moons""
• 20 November 2014 Sol88: Can you understand the significant delusions on that Thunderbolts web page on 67P "predictions"?
• 2 December 2014: Sol88 does not notice that Wal Thornhill narrates an ignorant and deluded video about 67P!

Sol88: List of outstanding questions
Haig: List of outstanding questions

Electric comets still do not exist !

 

[dasmiller]

<deleted>

 

[Reality Check]

Rosetta keeps on providing impressive images of 67P: CometWatch – 10 December

This four-image mosaic comprises images taken from a distance of 20.1 km from the centre of Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko on 10 December. The image resolution is 1.71 m/pixel and the individual 1024 x 1024 frames measure 1.75 km across. The mosaic is slightly cropped and measures 2.9 x 2.6 km.

 

[Sol88]

@ Jean Tate

In summary, I think there is a huge range of things we could discuss, on the ech. As you seem so taken with it, why don't you take the lead on such a discussion?

Ok, will you, Jean Tate, engage with me on the location of the "jets"?

Anywhoo lets have a crack at it ay!

Firstly mainstreams explanation:

Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers

Abstract
Observations of the inner coma of Comet 19P/Borrelly with the camera on the Deep Space 1 spacecraft revealed several highly collimated
dust jets emanating from the nucleus. The observed jets can be produced by acceleration of evolved gas from a subsurface cavity through
a narrow orifice to the surface. As long as the cavity is larger than the orifice, the pressure in the cavity will be greater than the ambient
pressure in the coma and the flow from the geyser will be supersonic. The gas flow becomes collimated as the sound speed is approached and
dust entrainment in the gas flow creates the observed jets. Outside the cavity, the expanding gas loses its collimated character, but the density
drops rapidly decoupling the dust and gas, allowing the dust to continue in a collimated beam. The hypothesis proposed here can explain the
jets seen in the inner coma of Comet 1P/Halley as well, and may be a primary mechanism for cometary activity.

2003 Published by Elsevier Inc

So YOU need subsurface cavities and a narrow orifice. This is the ONLY mechanism available to standard mainstream understanding of jet production on a comet.

Now when we have a look with the OSIRIS camera aboard Rosetta we only see a smooth dust covered plain with a few boulders strewn across. We have not yet seen any kind of orifice. in fact the jets only seem visible when 67P rotates and they become visible on the limb.

BUT when traced to their source we see ONLY A DUST COVERED PLAIN.

JEAN TATE, where are the orifices for YOUR jet production?


Because 67P is becoming more active, jets are also starting to emanate from ALL over the comet

Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is beginning to show a clearly visible increase in activity. While in the past months most of the dust emitted from the body’s surface seemed to originate from the neck region, which connects the two lobes, images obtained by Rosetta’s scientific imaging system OSIRIS now show jets of dust along almost the whole extent of the comet

further

“At this point, we believe that a large fraction of the illuminated comet’s surface is displaying some level of activity,” said Jean-Baptiste Vincent from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Germany

and just to make the point non negotiable

Since under normal circumstances the comet’s nucleus would outshine the jets, the necessary images must be drastically overexposed. “In addition, one image alone cannot tell us the whole story,” said Sierks. “From one image, we cannot discern exactly where on the surface a jet arises.” Instead, the researchers compare images of the same region taken from different angles in order to reconstruct the 3-D structure of the jets.

LINK

Have a go at that for starters Jean Tate, just to keep the discussion focused on the Electric Comet Theory.

I believe AGU are having a streamed presentation today about the finding from OSIRIS

 

[Reality Check]

Sol88: Where are the images of electrical discharges on 67P

@ Jean Tate ...

I will reply to address some ignorance in that post, Sol88.
Formation of jets in Comet 19P/Borrelly by subsurface geysers is the explanation for "several highly collimated dust jets emanating from the nucleus" on Comet 19P/Borrelly. This is a subset of comet jets that are highly collimated
The jets on 67P are fan shaped (not "highly collimated").

The jets on 67P are visible on the limb because they are outlined against the dark background (space is kind of black!).

Because the comet is heating up we have seen the spread of jets from inside the neck (contrary to what the electric comet would predict) to the lobes. OSIRIS images of Rosetta's comet show jets of activity By Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany | Published: Friday, October 24, 2014

While in the past months most of the dust emitted from the body’s surface seemed to originate from the neck region, which connects the two lobes, images obtained by Rosetta’s scientific imaging system OSIRIS now show jets of dust along almost the whole extent of the comet.

You need to read what you cite, Sol88:

Since under normal circumstances the comet’s nucleus would outshine the jets, the necessary images must be drastically overexposed. “In addition, one image alone cannot tell us the whole story,” said Sierks. “From one image, we cannot discern exactly where on the surface a jet arises.” Instead, the researchers compare images of the same region taken from different angles in order to reconstruct the 3-D structure of the jets.

And please do not lie, Sol88, nothing in your post is about "Electric Comet Theory" so the post is not trying to focus on it.
But since you want to focus on the "Electric Comet Theory": 17 December 2014 Sol88: Please point out in the OSIRIS images or other Rosetta images where the electrical discharges from high points predicted in the electric comet idea are.

 

[Sol88]

Question Sol88: Where are the images of electrical discharges on 67P

In the OSIRIS images, Reality Check.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach.

Oh...and where are the orifices, Reality Check...you know the one YOU need for YOUR idea of jet production???

We have seen to date no surfice ice, hard rocky like terrain and not orifices at the location of the jets...in fact

t high resolution, Borrelly’s main jet is resolved into a
series of smaller collimated jets (Fig. 1). Their details are
quite distinct; each has a cylindrical core 200–400 m ra-
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address:
yelle@lpl.arizona.edu (R.V. Yelle).
dius that is 4–6 km in length. Spacing between collimated
columns is typically
∼
1 km. Bright hemispheric-shaped
isophotes are visible at their bases (Fig. 1), particularly when
they are well resolved and their sources are near the limb.
Two of the collimated columns are traceable to sources that
appear as dark patches in or adjacent to the bright smooth
terrain (Soderblom et al., 2002)

Hmmmm....I think after today's findings at the AGU meeting the Geyser Model of jet production will be dead and it will have something to do with DUSTY PLASMA and Electrostatic effects on the surface of 67P.

Much the same as on the MOON, MERCURY and ALL rocky airless bodies, but we digress from the ELECTRIC COMET...again

Lunar water production
Main article: Lunar water

According to European Space Agency (ESA) scientists, hydrogen nuclei from solar winds are absorbed by the lunar regolith (a loose collection of irregular dust grains making up the Moon’s surface). An interaction between the hydrogen nuclei and oxygen present in the dust grains are expected to produce hydroxyl (HO-) and water (H2O).[100]

SARA (Sub keV Atom Reflecting Analyser) instrument developed by ESA and the Indian Space Research Organisation, was designed and used to study the Moon’s surface composition and solar wind-surface interactions. SARA’s results highlight a mystery: not every hydrogen nucleus is absorbed. One out of every five rebounds into space, combining to form an atom of hydrogen.[clarification needed][citation needed] Hydrogen shoots off at speeds of around 200 km per second and escapes without being deflected by the Moon’s weak gravity. This knowledge provides timely advice for scientists who are readying ESA’s BepiColombo mission to Mercury, as that spacecraft will carry two instruments similar to SARA.

Sounds electric to me

 

[Reality Check]

In the OSIRIS images, Reality Check.

That is a lie, Sol88, since the images are clearly captioned as containing jets.

Two views of the same region on the “neck” of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The right image was taken with an exposure time of less than a second and shows details on the comet’s surface. The left image was overexposed (exposure time of 18.45 seconds) so that surface structures are obscured. At the same time, however, jets arising from the comet’s surface become visible.

 

[Reality Check]

Hmmmm....

Some seriously managed quote Sol88

Hmmmm.... the ignorance is strong in you, Sol88, !
isophote

(computer graphics) A contour of equal luminance in an image.

Hmmmm.... the reading comprehension is low in you, Sol88, !

Two of the collimated columns are traceable to sources that appear as dark patches in or adjacent to the bright smooth terrain (Soderblom et al., 2002)

Here are jets traced to "dark patches" - could those be pits?

 

[D'rok]

We have seen to date no surfice [sic] ice...

How many times do you have to be given these links before it sinks in?

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/18/philae-settles-in-dust-covered-ice/

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/12/02/the-quest-for-organic-molecules-on-the-surface-of-67pc-g/

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2014/12/Ptolemy_table.png

 

[Reality Check]

We have seen to date no surfice ice, hard rocky like terrain ...

A little lie there, Sol88 - we have seen no "hard rocky like terrain". The lander results have shown that we have seen a thick dust blanket over a layer of hard ice.

 

[Reality Check]

How many times do you have to be given these links before it sinks in?

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/11/18/philae-settles-in-dust-covered-ice/

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/2014/12/02/the-quest-for-organic-molecules-on-the-surface-of-67pc-g/

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2014/12/Ptolemy_table.png

Given Sol88's track record, it will take at least 5 years before he can grasp the concept that a hard surface on a comet made of dust and ice is made of dust and ice, D'rok!

Sol88 started this thread on 6th July 2009 and is in still in denial of the measured densities of comets and the basic properties of electrical discharges (narrow band x-ray emission).

 

[D'rok]

Given Sol88's track record, it will take at least 5 years before he can grasp the concept that a hard surface on a comet made of dust and ice is made of dust and ice, D'rok!

Sol88 started this thread on 6th July 2009 and is in still in denial of the measured densities of comets and the basic properties of electrical discharges (narrow band x-ray emission).

That's some serious commitment to fantasy over science.

 

[Sol88]

That's some serious commitment to fantasy over science.

Given Sol88's track record, it will take at least 5 years before he can grasp the concept that a hard surface on a comet made of dust and ice is made of dust and ice, D'rok!

They drilled and testes for actual water ice or as the press release says hard surface like ice?

The probe then started to hammer itself into the subsurface, but was unable to make more than a few millimetres of progress even at the highest power level of the hammer motor.

“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid ice,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.

My bold.

The probe then started to hammer itself into the subsurface, but was unable to make more than a few millimetres of progress even at the highest power level of the hammer motor.

So fixed the quote to be more accurate

“If we compare the data with laboratory measurements, we think that the probe encountered a hard surface with strength comparable to that of solid rock,” says Tilman Spohn, principal investigator for MUPUS.

you could not design the MUPUS to hammer into ICE???? someone should get there rear kicked for that one....

 

[Sol88]

So again NO SURFACE ICE FOUND just something hard like ice...or in the Electric comet theory ROCK like an asteroid.

D'Rok where are the geysers? Orifices that the jets emanate from? subsurface chambers of higher pressure gas

 

[Sol88]

Looks like Philae failed in all attempts to resolve this dilemma..pity

 

[Sol88]

And this mechanism can not work on a comet because.....

Possible water cycle
Production

Lunar water has two potential origins: water-bearing comets (and other bodies) striking the Moon, and in situ production. It has been theorized that the latter may occur when hydrogen ions (protons) in the solar wind chemically combine with the oxygen atoms present in the lunar minerals (oxides, silicates etc.) to produce small amounts of water trapped in the minerals' crystal lattices or as hydroxyl groups, potential water precursors.[56] (This mineral-bound water, or hydroxylated mineral surface, must not be confused with water ice.)

The hydroxyl surface groups (S–OH) formed by the reaction of protons (H+) with oxygen atoms accessible at oxide surface (S=O) could further be converted in water molecules (H2O) adsorbed onto the oxide mineral's surface. The mass balance of a chemical rearrangement supposed at the oxide surface could be schematically written as follows:

2 S-OH —> S=O + S + H2O

or,

2 S-OH —> S–O–S + H2O


where S represents the oxide surface.

The formation of one water molecule requires the presence of two adjacent hydroxyl groups, or a cascade of successive reactions of one oxygen atom with two protons. This could constitute a limiting factor and decreases the probability of water production if the proton density per surface unit is too low.

LINK

 

[D'rok]

So again NO SURFACE ICE FOUND just something hard like ice...or in the Electric comet theory ROCK like an asteroid.

I guess RC is right and it will never sink in.

http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta/files/2014/12/Ptolemy_table.png

What do the words "mainly water" mean to you, Sol88?

 

[Reality Check]

They drilled and testes for actual water ice or as the press release says hard surface like ice?

You expose your ignorance of the Rosetta mission yet again, Sol88 ?
There was no drill.
The probe (basically a hammer) found a hard surface in a comet made of ice and dust, thus that surface is made of ice and dust.

Given Sol88's track record, it will take at least 5 years before he can grasp the concept that a hard surface on a comet made of dust and ice is made of dust and ice, D'rok!

Sol88 started this thread on 6th July 2009 and is in still in denial of the measured densities of comets and the basic properties of electrical discharges (narrow band x-ray emission).